Labor's carbon tax lie

[OzWaveGuy]

Alan Jones radio suggests the Carbon Tax is more about funding the $590 million that Greg Combet signed off in Mexico to fast start a fund to reduce climate change.

Yes, I was aware of the half billion or so put up to fund the commitment from Cancun. Do we get a receipt to show where that funding is going/gone and the outcome of the investment? Unlikely! It's going into the UN coffers to fund more climate propaganda since there has been funding issues at the IPCC according to an IPPC person I spoke to a few weeks ago.

 

[Logique]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...arbon-price-doesnt-add-up-20110408-1d7fw.html..The Herald spoke to the owner of Russell's Meats, Russell Greenwood, who confirmed his annual power bill. It would in fact go up by $4000 a year under the 18 per cent price rises that were predicted for the first two years of the Rudd government's carbon pollution reduction scheme..

$4,000/yr - that's just for the first year at the 'introductory rate' IF.

 

[IFocus]

$4,000/yr - that's just for the first year at the 'introductory rate' IF.

But then to put that number into perspective read on and

For Greenwood, that is undoubtedly a significant extra cost. But he also told us his rough annual turnover, which allowed us to calculate that in order to pass on all that extra cost to his consumers, he would have to raise his prices by about 0.187 per cent.

For Greenwood's customers in Coffs Harbour that would mean T-bone steak at $22 a kilo would now cost … wait for it … . $22.04. Minced meat at $11 a kilo would now cost $11.02.

I think the point was about Abbotts con but that's the politics of fear mongering and it works.

 

[IFocus]

Alan Kohler

There is simply no easy answer to climate change in Australia thanks to past procrastination. Whichever Government is in power when it finally has to be dealt with won't be in power for long.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/11/3187543.htm

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

But then to put that number into perspective read on and

Numbers/shumbers.

She lied.

She said she would not introduce it and as a consequence gained government.

Now she says she will.

She lied.

and she needs to harden up and admit to it like Kev12 did.

gg

 

[sails]

But then to put that number into perspective read on and

I think the point was about Abbotts con but that's the politics of fear mongering and it works.

IFocus, I don't think the butcher has factored in the potential downturn in his sales due to people not being able to afford as much meat as prior to carbon tax or he may need to cut his profit margin to sell his meat at lower prices. And then there is the production line - won't they also have price rises to cover their own increased taxes or expenses directly related to the carbon tax?

If the butcher is simply looking at only his increased electricity costs, he may well be in for a few shocks. I have been in business and understand how costs are passed on through the line - and they tend to accumulate along the way.

And this is just the butcher - what about all the other small business owners who glibly think they can just look at their electricity - it's going to bite much, much harder than that, IMO.

You call this fear mongering - I call it being realistic. Abbott is doing the right thing to get people to think about the possible ripple effect from this tax, IMO.

This carbon tax is going to have a massive ripple effect which is something the "believers" deny and the "deniers" realise...lol

Yeah, religious fervour and politics should never be mixed...

 

[drsmith]

Forget that tough bit of T-bone.

The juciest meat about the householder impact comes from treasury itself.

 

[Julia]

Forget that tough bit of T-bone.

The juciest meat about the householder impact comes from treasury itself.

Can you expand on this?

 

[nulla nulla]

Forget that tough bit of T-bone.

The juciest meat about the householder impact comes from treasury itself.

Can you expand on this?

I think he is talking about a "Rib Eye Steak" often refered to as a "Bushmans Cutlet". Now there is a nice steak.

 

[drsmith]

Can you expand on this?

It may have been covered on this thread before.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3180469.htm

A month after the Government announced plans to put a price on carbon, Treasury has released the first official estimates of how much it could cost households.

Treasury documents show it could push bills up by more than $900 a year.

The reference was to this being a broader based measure of the impact than a single item such as a cut of steak.

 

[MACCA350]

It may have been covered on this thread before.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3180469.htm

So the official figures are actually more than the Libs estimates............just had a vision of the ALP honchos slapping their foreheads muttering "$#!+, not again, we'll never live this one down"

Cheers

 

[joea]

Its pretty obvious that the government had absolutely no figures or data on the carbon tax before it was announced. It was "we will work it out as we go" mentality.

They now appear to be releasing "details" bit by bit to gauge the voters reaction.

Once reaction is received, they either tighten of soften their approach, in an attempt to gain majority support.

Well the advice Rudd got from Kenett( i think), about planning, has obviously gone straight over their heads.

It's almost got a "Joh mentality", when he talked about feeding the chooks. This time its the voters and not the media that is being referred to.
Cheers

 

[Happy]

From article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/13/3190388.htm?section=justin

Millions to be 'better off' under carbon tax
By Jeremy Thompson

So what is the point to tax and give money back?

Those who are “worse off” will be “better off” under carbon tax.

Surely it means that those who are “better off” because they work or have non-social welfare income will be twice as “worse off” because they will have to pay everybody’s carbon tax.

Only Labor can spin crap and pretend that taking twice as much money from one group is OK, as long as their core supporters are fully compensated.

 

[bandicoot76]

hopefully the majority of people are waking up to the fact that 'man made climate change' is nothing but a massive global hoax, an insidious fraud and a devious global money grab by:

1) greedy cash strapped governments,
2)devious 'green' activist organisations,
3) corporate carbon trading pirate 'robber barons' and
4) the 'gravy train' riding pseudo-scientists (to name but a few)

these are just a few of the parasites that make up the global climate alarmist mafia cartel that are simply pushing their own agenga by trying to manipulate the masses through guilt and paranoia and who are playing on the desire of the majority of people who simply try to do the right thing however misguided (or duped perhaps?) that they may be!

this whole agenda makes me sick and raises my stress levels & blood pressure through the roof so i'm not going to go on these threads anymore...

DO SOME RESEARCH THE INFORMATION IS OUT THERE! sheeple get the government they deserve!

 

[Julia]

Can anyone spell out for me the point of today's 'announcement' that millions would be 'better off'?

As far as I can tell, neither Mr Combet, nor Ms Gillard, has said anything they have not already said, viz that people on low incomes will be compensated, many to the point that they will be better off than without the dreaded carbon tax. (We will need to see some clear figures to substantiate this when the amount of compensation is eventually announced.)

Ergo, everyone else will be much worse off as in true socialist style the middle class subsidise the poor.

The government says that more than fifty percent of the tax taken will be used to compensate households. Does the remainder go to subsidising business, or does it flow into the government's coffers?

How can they even for a moment imagine that business being slugged with the tax will not quite reasonably pass it on, probably in excess of any amounts offered in compensation? How will it be possible to accurately calculate whether price gouging is happening? I can't begin to imagine the new multi level bureaucracy that is going to be required to attempt all these calculations.

Given the breathtaking capacity of energy companies to rock in massive price rises in the last couple of years, it's difficult to imagine they will not regard the passing on of the carbon tax as a golden opportunity to whack up their profits, while piously muttering that they are merely recouping costs.

What an ungodly mess it will all be if it ever actually happens.

 

[trainspotter]

In answer to Julias question as to how we are better off -

"Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Howard's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas and were compensated for their carbon tax."

Apologies to Orwell and a small authors licence to myself.

 

[sails]

Can anyone spell out for me the point of today's 'announcement' that millions would be 'better off'?

As far as I can tell, neither Mr Combet, nor Ms Gillard, has said anything they have not already said, viz that people on low incomes will be compensated, many to the point that they will be better off than without the dreaded carbon tax. (We will need to see some clear figures to substantiate this when the amount of compensation is eventually announced.)

lol...substantiation, cost anaylsis and labor really don't mix in the same sentence. Look at the effort they went to prevent the NBN cost analysis to the public. I think carbon tax will be no different and will mostly remain a mystery, albeit with glib promises of being better off. But I agree with Abbott - can anyone really trust this government after the blatant lies?

The government says that more than fifty percent of the tax taken will be used to compensate households. Does the remainder go to subsidising business, or does it flow into the government's coffers?

How can they even for a moment imagine that business being slugged with the tax will not quite reasonably pass it on, probably in excess of any amounts offered in compensation? How will it be possible to accurately calculate whether price gouging is happening? I can't begin to imagine the new multi level bureaucracy that is going to be required to attempt all these calculations.

Given the breathtaking capacity of energy companies to rock in massive price rises in the last couple of years, it's difficult to imagine they will not regard the passing on of the carbon tax as a golden opportunity to whack up their profits, while piously muttering that they are merely recouping costs.

What an ungodly mess it will all be if it ever actually happens.

And how can it possibly help the little 1.28% of carbon emissions Australia contributes in the first place. And labor keep talking about the "low income" people. That they will look after households. But do they know what individual household's needs are as they would vary? Then there seem to be no details as to the cut off point for compensation so we don't know how low the income will have to be. Will it end up like the donated flood funds where the criteria was seemingly ridiculously low?

And then what about those who are just outside the compensation cut off? I think there will be many "working families" who will be severely hurt by this tax who will be outside the compensation bracket, but who have mortgages and growing families.

I agree it will be a mess of massive proportions and, IMO, people are crazy if they think they can trust a word this government says. Lies simply seem to be a means to an end for them.

 

[Julia]

In answer to Julias question as to how we are better off -

"Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Howard's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas and were compensated for their carbon tax."

Apologies to Orwell and a small authors licence to myself.

Ah, I see. That's quite all right then. I now understand that it was my stupidity that prevented me from understanding the forthcoming beneficence of our Dear Leaders. Thank you indeed, Trainspotter.

 

[joea]

Ah, I see. That's quite all right then. I now understand that it was my stupidity that prevented me from understanding the forthcoming beneficence of our Dear Leaders. Thank you indeed, Trainspotter.

From my understandings of information given by Gillard and Combet, is that every major statement they make regarding benefits from their taxes, cannot be identified by the public. ( Swan can be included as another of the 3 amigos)

There is no KPI (Key Performance Indicator), that the voter can use.

When will the voters know when the flood levy has reached its required value?
How will the voters know that those on the lower income bracket will actually be better off.?
How will the millions better off know how much they are better off.?

So every statement made by Labor has to be accepted in good faith.

If any body who got the $900 donation from the government, does not realise that its allready been taken back, well God help them.

Any benefit that is linked to the tax system has to be anticipated as a grab by taxiation system.
Hence I will give you something but will take it back with a factor(i.e.x by 2)

The government is in that much debt, the only way out is by voters imput.
That is why they are laying such a lot of smoke screens.
Obviously the floods and cyclones are not helping the bottom line initially, but agriculture
is well on the mend.

So we live in a word of political statements, that we " like it or lump it", and Labor
does not realy care which way we accept it.:

Cheers

 

[Knobby22]

The carbon tax is not looking great so far.

Can't support it.